general limit for bringing in the antagonist?

[Trauntj]

was curious when you guys felt the appropriate time to bring in the antagonist in a novel...or should I say, when it too late to bring one so the central conflict gets moving along? I know there are many forms of doing this (some are on the first page, quarter in, half, or even on the last page) bt perhaps there is a general rule to abstain from bad/dull writing.

does it really matter if the plot is riding along? is there a general limit to when the antagonist (or at least his/her/its influence) is felt, or does it really depend on the story itself?

[Anahid21]

I'm reading a writing guide that says one should bring out the antagonist in the first quarter of the story. If not fully out at least a mention is necessary. I'm sure these rules are not set in stone. There are stories where the protagonist (and the reader) don't meet the bad guy until the very end, yet get affected by the results of his evil deeds. This very much depends on the nature of the story. Stories like Saw or Se7en don't show the killer off the bat, similar to many other thrillers and horrors. Even in the novel I'm writing (which is fantasy) the protagonist meets the main bad guy near the beginning of the third act. That is because in the beginning, the antagonist is socially at a much higher level than the protagonist. A series of event allow the protagonist to climb up the social ladder and he eventually meets his match. However he is able to witness the effects of the antagonist's influence and evil intentions throughout the story.

I guess what I'm trying to say is you can bring your bad guy out at any time, but make sure his effect is felt soon enough otherwise there would be no conflict, or he wouldn't be your villain.

[katiemac]

It's going to depend on the story.

Lots of mysteries, for example, don't highlight the antagonist until the climax. That doesn't mean the character hasn't been around the whole time, but he or she may not be revealed as the antagonist until much later.

In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

[ChaosTitan]

In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

What Katie said. Even if we don't meet the actual antagonist until later in the novel, their influence and machinations must be there in order to help drive the conflict in the novel.

My main antagonist didn't actually appear on the page until the third-to-last chapter in the book, but his own goals, in direction conflict with the protagonist, were felt even before the events of Chapter One.

[Lady Ice]

was curious when you guys felt the appropriate time to bring in the antagonist in a novel...or should I say, when it too late to bring one so the central conflict gets moving along? I know there are many forms of doing this (some are on the first page, quarter in, half, or even on the last page) bt perhaps there is a general rule to abstain from bad/dull writing.

does it really matter if the plot is riding along? is there a general limit to when the antagonist (or at least his/her/its influence) is felt, or does it really depend on the story itself?

Bring them in too fast and you risk not having the protagonist fleshed out enough for it to have any impact. Once the reader's got a good measureof the protagonist, then bring in the antagonist.

[gothicangel]

My anatagonist makes his appearance within the first few paragraphs of chapter one.

[Chris P]

In terms of getting the antagonist's influence on the page, that's a bit different, and it does depend on the novel's main conflict. In all likelihood, if the plot is moving forward, the antagonist's influence is already there, even if not explicitly so.

That's reassuring. The bad guy in my novel represents an extreme example of people who appear throughout the story but he himself doesn't appear until much later. Of course, the book's not published so there is no proof it will work in my case.

[Maxinquaye]

I usually try to give the MC(s) maybe 10-20k words to get setup before bringing in the antagonistic force (which can be something else than a person, of course). In Council Brats I bring in the antagonistic force in chapter two, but the conduit for that force appears (as foreshadow) almost at once. Hard to describe, really. :)

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Well, in "Dragon House," the conflict incited by the antagonist is there on page one, and he's talked about a lot, but he isn't actually brought on-page until about halfway through the manuscript.

In "The Carrion Girl," she's my title character, and she's there three pages in.

It depends on the story. (And I can't say whether either of my examples "works," but I'd like to think so.) In general, I think that as soon as you have a conflict, you need to have your antagonist as a "presence" if not as a fully fleshed-out character.

[Use Her Name]

It depends on the genre, seriously. I personally think that there are a lot of antagonists for each character. I would say you need to bring in at least one antagonist in as soon as possible. The first part of the novel is to set up the initial incedent. The initial incedent starts the story. The characters who have been introduced go on the story. The antagonist can be anything-- man against man, or some mountain the MC will climb, or an internal deamon. The relationship between this antagonist and the story needs to be established. I don't think there is a "page number" by which you need to get this out. There is no rule about it anyway.

[ChaosTitan]

I usually try to give the MC(s) maybe 10-20k words to get setup before bringing in the antagonistic force (which can be something else than a person, of course).

10-20k is an awful lot of words to get through before the antagonistic force shows up and the plot kicks in.

[mscelina]

It depends on how closely tied your antagonist is to the conflict. This goes back to what Kelly said about influence and machinations. If the MC doesn't have a conflict early on in the book, there's no reason for the plot to progress. If the conflict is tied to the antagonist, then even before your introduce the character formally the antagonist is impacting both the plot and your main character. I'm from the school of thought that think it essential to introduce the conflict ASAP.

[Maxinquaye]

10-20k is an awful lot of words to get through before the antagonistic force shows up and the plot kicks in.

Not really. I follow the 3-arc structure, and the plot get's in gear at the end of act one. I would say, in a 100k novel I should - if I wrote exactly according to formula wait until 20-25k before the main plot point kicks in.

Then there's a difference between "when it shows up" and "when it kicks in".

[Anahid21]

I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

[Maxinquaye]

I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

Your novel is about something, right? If you boil it down to one thing: your MCs main problem. That's the conflict you put in the 3-act structure. It may be that you have a MC that is mortally afraid of water, but then finds the love of his/her life in an underwater accident where s/he will die if s/he doesn't get help from him.

Trite example. But most novels has 1 central conflict.

But then you have subplots and stuff that aren't really covered in the 3-act structure.

[Lady Ice]

I was also wondering, can't there be more than one antagonistic force?

Imagine a story about a boy who goes on a journey and ends up slaying an evil king. At first his goal is to get to the kingdom, and he does so by crossing a hazardous terrain. He knows nothing about the king yet. In this part the antagonist is the terrain and its natural hazards, the chasms and traps, the winds and dark storms that blow constantly. When he finally arrives there the antagonist changes into the evil king. So can you argue that the antagonist, or his influence, has been brought in too late?

I would say that it's too late. To build the evil king up to become a stronger antagonist than the land was would be hard. It also changes the focus of the story from being about a man's struggle through hazardous terrian, man vs. nature to being one about man versus another man. I would say that the evil king is an obstacle, not an antagonist, unless you set him up as an antagonistic force. This could be by including scenes with him, or scenes about him.

[James D. Macdonald]

You kinda want to (usually) have everyone on-stage by page 100, but the demands of the story trump all.

[ChaosTitan]

Not really. I follow the 3-arc structure, and the plot get's in gear at the end of act one. I would say, in a 100k novel I should - if I wrote exactly according to formula wait until 20-25k before the main plot point kicks in.

Then there's a difference between "when it shows up" and "when it kicks in".

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but it sounds as if you're saying that because you've applied a screenwriting technique to novel writing, then it's okay to wait a quarter-way into your novel before the main plot points kick in?

If waited that long for my plot to kick in, my editor would have a fit.

[mscelina]

Actually, if you waited that long for the plot to kick in you probably wouldn't have an editor. JMHO, of course.

[Anahid21]

I would say that the evil king is an obstacle, not an antagonist, unless you set him up as an antagonistic force. This could be by including scenes with him, or scenes about him.

What if the evil king (who also has magical powers) is mentioned in earlier chapters by, say, a psychic or a wise man, and you later find out some of the natural hazards the boy faced on his way weren't natural at all?

I can't help but to think about The Wizard of Oz. Was the Wicked Witch of the West the antagonist or just an obstacle? Can we critique that story for bringing in the conflict too late?

[ChaosTitan]

Actually, if you waited that long for the plot to kick in you probably wouldn't have an editor. JMHO, of course.

:D I like your HO.

[Maxinquaye]

The Honourable Roy Foltrigg, attorney for the Southern District of Louisiana at New Orleans, makes his first appearance in the book The Client at around page 40. By that time, Mark (the client) has found a body, met his lawyer, and so on, and the plot doesn't actually kick in until Mark meets Foltrigg. The conflict is between Foltrigg and Mark when Foltrigg tries to trick, seduce, threaten Mark to reveal what the dead man said to him in the car, and which may lead him to the buried body of Senator Boyette.

Everything before that is foreshadowing the conflict.

I disagree that the 3-act structure is a screen writing technique. It's a story telling technique.

[Maxinquaye]

Translated to my own novels, say Council Brat, the conflict starts when my MC Michael is formally charged with assault, but by that time he's fought a big fight, been miserable because he's lonely, because he has a hard time making contact with other people, and so on.

First you make the reader care, and then you knife the character that the reader cares about in the back where it hurts most. :)

Just in MY humble opinion, of course. :)

[ChaosTitan]

The Honourable Roy Foltrigg, attorney for the Southern District of Louisiana at New Orleans, makes his first appearance in the book The Client at around page 40. By that time, Mark (the client) has found a body, met his lawyer, and so on, and the plot doesn't actually kick in until Mark meets Foltrigg. The conflict is between Foltrigg and Mark when Foltrigg tries to trick, seduce, threaten Mark to reveal what the dead man said to him in the car, and which may lead him to the buried body of Senator Boyette.

Everything before that is foreshadowing the conflict.

The Client, in paperback, is 496 pages long, according to Amazon.com. Page 40 is nowhere near the end of the "first act" of that book. It's still the first 10% or so of the narrative, which is just about when the plot ought to kick in. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb is to have the plot kicking in no later than the first 50 pages. Heck, in most of the books I've read recently the plot kicks in sooner.

So the example doesn't support you.


I disagree that the 3-act structure is a screen writing technique. It's a story telling technique.

No problem. But from personal experience, I've read books on screenwriting and taken a screenwriting course in college. Most of them taught the 3-act structure. I can't recall a book on novel writing that taught the same structure, and none of my college writing courses did. :)

I've applied elements of the 3-act structure to my own novels, sure. But not so much as to break it down by the method taught for screenplays. *shrug*

[Maxinquaye]

Page 40 is nowhere near the end of the "third act" of that book. It's still the first 10% or so of the narrative, which is just about when the plot ought to kick in. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb is to have the plot kicking in no later than the first 50 pages. Heck, in most of the books I've read recently the plot kicks in sooner.


I haven't said anything about the third act. I've said that I try to get the plot kicking in between 10-20k words, which you reacted to. Heck, that's not even at the end of the first act, if the 3-act paradigm should be followed.

[ChaosTitan]

First you make the reader care, and then you knife the character that the reader cares about in the back where it hurts most. :)


I agree. My caveat is to not wait so long before knifing them that the reader is bored and has stopped caring if he gets knifed or not. It's a balance.

[Anahid21]

I'm also of the school of thought that foreshadowing should allow you to delay the entrance of the villain. Maybe you have minor villains throughout the story, under the rule or control of the main villain, making life miserable for your protagonist.

Your main villain could be the final boss of your story, to put it in video game terms.

[ChaosTitan]

I haven't said anything about the third act. I've said that I try to get the plot kicking in between 10-20k words, which you reacted to. Heck, that's not even at the end of the first act, if the 3-act paradigm should be followed.

Oops. I meant first act. :) *sigh*

Went back and edited my post. I hope it makes more sense now. :)

[Albannach]

It depends on how closely tied your antagonist is to the conflict. This goes back to what Kelly said about influence and machinations. If the MC doesn't have a conflict early on in the book, there's no reason for the plot to progress. If the conflict is tied to the antagonist, then even before your introduce the character formally the antagonist is impacting both the plot and your main character. I'm from the school of thought that think it essential to introduce the conflict ASAP.

I have to agree. If there's no reason for the plot to progress, there is also no reason for me to read the novel. I seriously don't read for someone's pretty prose.

My own novel the antagonist is mentioned in the first chapter and introduced in the second.

Mileage may vary but so does the length of novels. I don't worry much about screenwriting because I'm not a screenwriter. I assume storytelling there is similar but it's not the same medium so it will differ.

There are a lot of things you have to do in the beginning and for the whole dang thing such as characterisation and getting the reader to care about what's happening. If you can't do all those at the same time, you may have a problem. :)

[Maxinquaye]

The Client, in paperback, is 496 pages long, according to Amazon.com. Page 40 is nowhere near the end of the "first act" of that book. It's still the first 10% or so of the narrative, which is just about when the plot ought to kick in. Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb is to have the plot kicking in no later than the first 50 pages. Heck, in most of the books I've read recently the plot kicks in sooner.

So the example doesn't support you.

And I haven't said anything against that. :) But the PLOT actually kicks in later in The Client. Foltrigg appears for the first time at around page 40. He still has to learn about Mark, and decide what to do.

But it's beside the point, because that's not what I'm saying anyway. I'm just supporting MY version that you can take a chunk of time to get to the plot.

That doesn't mean you can spend 20-30 pages talking about how the MC wakes up in the morning, goes to work, and then goes back home again. You need to write well, and hook the reader - and foreshadow that it's worth him/her to stick around in the story.

But that's an entirely different thing that what I was talking about anyway.

*shrug*

[Albannach]

That doesn't mean you can spend 20-30 pages talking about how the MC wakes up in the morning, goes to work, and then goes back home again. You need to write well, and hook the reader - and foreshadow that it's worth him/her to stick around in the story.

But that's an entirely different thing that what I was talking about anyway.

*shrug*
If there's no conflict I assure you, I'm not sticking around.

It's been too long since I read The Client and I'm not going to go re-read it to refresh my memory. But to keep me reading, and a lot of other people I suspect, it had better be more than a bit of foreshadowing and following the MC around convincing me what a sweetie he or she is.

Edit: I am baffled at the concept that you can't convince the reader to care for the MC WHILE showing them being knifed. When did someone come up with a rule that each chapter can only have one goal?

[mscelina]

As I recollect, The Client is not Grisham's first book. It's his fourth. Rules are quite a bit different for him than for us. He makes his own rules. We follow the ones we're given. *shrug* That kind of the way the industry works.

Write your story the way you feel it needs to be written. You determine when your antagonist makes his/her/its first appearance. BUT without a solidly established antagonist at the beginning or near the beginning of the book, your conflict had better be strong enough to drive the plot forward until the antagonist waltzes gracefully in, late for his own party.

[STKlingaman]

I think the antagonist needs to be brought
in sooner then the 'hero', so you know
what the protagonist has to deal with.

My MC in the latest finished story
(see below) isn't introduces until around
page 50, and doesn't really stand out
for another 20 or so pages.

[Maxinquaye]

As I recollect, The Client is not Grisham's first book. It's his fourth. Rules are quite a bit different for him than for us. He makes his own rules. We follow the ones we're given. *shrug* That kind of the way the industry works.


I think the only rule is to serve the story. If I do that well, great. If I don't, then no amount of marketing considerations will matter. It will be a part of the slush pile forever.

[Slushie]

The antagonistic force in my current project appears in the second paragraph. After 500 words, it's clear what the mc wants and what's in his way. From there, I just start throwing stones. How he (and later she, since it becomes dual POV) reacts to the problems is what reveals character, so no setup is needed.

Is it too early to introduce the main conflict? Too late? If you understand your story then you can answer that question on your own. :)

[Anahid21]

In my WIP the true antagonist does not turn up until the last chapter. Things definitively go straight to hell from then on though.

This may not apply to your story but I just realised it makes sense for quest stories and stories that involve journeys of any kind (even internal) to bring out the antagonist in the end and just show the effects of his/her work throughout.

[Chasing the Horizon]

The antags in my books very rarely appear in person before the end. Maybe it's the type of stories I write, but once the MC meets the antag, they're going to fight and one of them is probably going to die. Sometimes the antag shows up a few times throughout the book or series for big fights where they and the MC both escape alive. There's plenty of conflict, though. The MC needs to either find the antag (if they're hiding), or find something that will give him/her the power to defeat the antag (if the antag is super-powerful), or figure out who the antag is (if it's not obvious).

[Trauntj]

thanks for all the replies. :)

As far as the novel I'm writing right now, my antagonist (and the others obstacles, like someone else said) could be one of several things:

- the world itself (which changes dramatically at various occasions) it will be introduced within the first few paragraphs
- the man trying to force the world to stop changing with a drastic method. not sure about the man yet, which was my reason for making this thread. shouldn't be too far in though.
- my MC's internal conflict, which at first seems like a blessing but as the story progresses it turns into a literal fight for survival. Most likely 2nd or 3rd chapter
- warring political factions making the world a very scared and paranoid place. will be introduced within the first few pages

[Anahid21]

The antags in my books very rarely appear in person before the end. Maybe it's the type of stories I write, but once the MC meets the antag, they're going to fight and one of them is probably going to die. Sometimes the antag shows up a few times throughout the book or series for big fights where they and the MC both escape alive. There's plenty of conflict, though. The MC needs to either find the antag (if they're hiding), or find something that will give him/her the power to defeat the antag (if the antag is super-powerful), or figure out who the antag is (if it's not obvious).

If I copy your book on a CD and pop it in my XBOX360, can I play it? :tongue

[Slushie]

thanks for all the replies. :)

As far as the novel I'm writing right now, my antagonist (and the others obstacles, like someone else said) could be one of several things:

- the world itself (which changes dramatically at various occasions) it will be introduced within the first few paragraphs
- the man trying to force the world to stop changing with a drastic method. not sure about the man yet, which was my reason for making this thread. shouldn't be too far in though.
- my MC's internal conflict, which at first seems like a blessing but as the story progresses it turns into a literal fight for survival. Most likely 2nd or 3rd chapter
- warring political factions making the world a very scared and paranoid place. will be introduced within the first few pages

Nail: Head

Sounds like a dystopian story and this gets me thinking of 1984. I'd argue the antagonist in that story makes his appearance within the first couple pages: when Winston has an interal reaction to the the Big Brother poster in the stairwell. Then other obstacles come into play: O'Brian, thoughtpolice (specifically the shop owner), Room 101. All those obstacles are satellites or symbols of the main conflict: man v. world.

Although some sort of conflict or intrigue should be introduced early on, the central conflict can be introduced at different stages loosely depending on their type (man v self, man v man, man v world). It really is a case by case basis, though what you pointed out in the quote seems to me a fairly accurate guideline.

One thing about man v. man (not directed to the quoted post): just because the antagonist may not make its physical manifestation until the climax does not mean s/he is not present before then. If the antagonist's actions have an impact on the protagonist, then the antagonist is present in the story.

[Lady Ice]

What if the evil king (who also has magical powers) is mentioned in earlier chapters by, say, a psychic or a wise man, and you later find out some of the natural hazards the boy faced on his way weren't natural at all?


If the evil king has been properly foreshadowed- not one reference in a massive paragraph and never mentioned again or lots of 'The King will probably be there. I think he's very evil.' As a reader we need to be assured of this king's power, so if this mystic/wise man is convinced that the king is bad, that'll be enough.

And as for the 3-act structure, it's basically what in theatre is called a 'well-made play'. Act 1 is exposition- setting up the board, the conflict, and your pawn pieces; Act 2 is the biggest as it's your actual conflict; then Act 3 is your conclusion, basically tying up loose threads and winding the whole thing down.

[Aidan Watson-Morris]

I like the antagonist in the prologue. Well, actually, it depends. Whatever.

[Anahid21]

Is it possible that some of us might mistake or not recognize our true antagonists. In a story about an odd boy who is rejected by everyone until he slays a monster, the monster may seem to be the antagonist, but the true antagonist is the society. In this case it shouldn't matter that the monster appears late in the story since its only purpose is to be a tool to help the boy defeat the real antagonist: society's judgement of him.

Similarly someone's lack of confidence in himself could be the main conflict in the story. He could overcome a challenge in the end - say a lawyer successfully defending an innocent client - and get back his trust in himself.


Just because the antagonist may not make its physical manifestation until the climax does not mean s/he is not present before then. If the antagonist's actions have an impact on the protagonist, then the antagonist is present in the story.

Even if those actions are not associated with the antagonist until the very end because he was working behind the scenes?

[MGraybosch]

In the latest draft of Starbreaker, I introduced the antagonist first. However, the protagonist does not confront the antagonist directly in the first third of the book.

[James D. Macdonald]

In The Lord of the Rings Sauron never appears.

[MGraybosch]

In The Lord of the Rings Sauron never appears.

And I have a hard time thinking of him as the antagonist as a consequence of him never appearing on stage. I don't think of him as a character, but as a malignant force of nature. Unfortunately, Saruman isn't a big enough character to do the job Sauron should have been doing.

[Maxinquaye]

Isn't the ring the antagonist?

[James D. Macdonald]

Sauron is the title character.

[Anahid21]

And I have a hard time thinking of him as the antagonist as a consequence of him never appearing on stage. I don't think of him as a character, but as a malignant force of nature. Unfortunately, Saruman isn't a big enough character to do the job Sauron should have been doing.

THIS.
One BIIIIG problem I have with the LOTR series is that it never shows us a strong and tangible villain. I put that, and its massive length next to all the other issues that would have made its publication impossible in today's market.

[Lady Ice]

Isn't the ring the antagonist?

The ring doesn't make any conscious decisions though; it has no goals. There isn't a conflict- the ring is an obstacle.

[Slushie]

Even if those actions are not associated with the antagonist until the very end because he was working behind the scenes?


This could be a case where the reader believes it's man v world for most of the book; however, once the antagonistic character is revealed as the reason for all the problems, the reader realizes it's man v man.

Honestly, what the conflict is called doesn't really matter. As long as there is something standing in the protagonist's way, then there's a chance for a story. It's the writer's choice when to bring in the antagonist and it's not like there is a page limit on when it can be done. Just keep the reader interested in what's going on.

[Maxinquaye]

The ring doesn't make any conscious decisions though; it has no goals. There isn't a conflict- the ring is an obstacle.

It was a bit of a off-the-top question, admittedly, given that Sauron never appears.

HOWEVER now that I think about it, the ring does seem to act on its own. It leaves Gollum under the Misty Mountains. It works on the user to have the user return it to Mordor. I'm thinking of scenes like on Weathertop where it works on Frodo to put the ring on when the ring wraiths surround them.

Or maybe the ring is just a world-manifestation of Sauron.

[Lady Ice]

It was a bit of a off-the-top question, admittedly, given that Sauron never appears.

HOWEVER now that I think about it, the ring does seem to act on its own. It leaves Gollum under the Misty Mountains. It works on the user to have the user return it to Mordor. I'm thinking of scenes like on Weathertop where it works on Frodo to put the ring on when the ring wraiths surround them.

Or maybe the ring is just a world-manifestation of Sauron.

I would say that the ring is a manifestation of the villain.

[Neversage]

does it really matter if the plot is riding along? is there a general limit to when the antagonist (or at least his/her/its influence) is felt, or does it really depend on the story itself?

When does the reader need to know about the antagonist?

Consider some well-known antagonists: Darth Vader, Sauron, Voldemort, Darken Rahl. How many chapters into their respective stories did we finally even hear about them at all?

[MGraybosch]

Sauron is the title character.

I know, but he is never "on stage". He never says anything. He doesn't really do anything directly. He doesn't seem to get much characterization in LOTR; most of what I know about Sauron's motives and personality came from reading the Silmarillion.

I prefer Saruman as an antagonist. He made choices that led to his corruption. He acts directly and indirectly against Gandalf and against the Fellowship. He actually speaks for himself, and is given time "on stage".

[Lady Ice]

When does the reader need to know about the antagonist?

Consider some well-known antagonists: Darth Vader, Sauron, Voldemort, Darken Rahl. How many chapters into their respective stories did we finally even hear about them at all?

They are sci-fi/fantasy villains though and primarily exist to create a fight/confrontation scene at the end, thus rounding off the story. They don't really have goals- they just want evil.

[Neversage]

They are sci-fi/fantasy villains though and primarily exist to create a fight/confrontation scene at the end, thus rounding off the story. They don't really have goals- they just want evil.

Darth Vader, for one, is not a real antagonist. That role falls on the Emperor or--more accurately still--the Empire itself.

One of my bad habits is not being very clear. I meant to say, look how far into their respective stories we get before we are even aware they exist?

Darth Vader (or the Empire, which makes more sense) is almost immediate.
Sauron is only mentioned; first in chapter 2.
Voldemort, as I recall, was a good 1/4 the way through the book.

The timing varies, but in each case it is as soon as the reader needs to care/know. Some of the more indirect entrances like Sauron, or Darken Rahl, can be tools to make the villain seem more ominous.

[LOG]

It's really hard to answer that.
Example: You know Sauron is the antagonist in LotR, but he's never directly brought into the story. Instead we always meet more direct antagonists, such as the Nazgul and the orcs. Sauron is like a hovering shadow, he's never truly brought into the picture.

[Anahid21]

Reading all the post I've reached the conclusion that it doesn't really matter when, where or how you bring in your evil dude as long as the story entertains the reader. In other words I'm fully with EyeSeaAll on this. Your story could be about Man v. World with a dash of Man v. Man at the end like most SciFi/Fantasy. It could feature a shadowy antagonist like Sauron with no physical manifestation at all, but effects that ripple through your world. It could even have a fused antagonist/protagonist character like Fight Club and all other dual personality stories. Remember in Fight Club we didn't even know the villain was a villain (or a virtual character for that matter) until the very end, and that wasn't even SciFi.

[Cliff Face]

In LotR it is said that the ring is part of Sauron - it keeps him in this world, and yearns to be with him. So, through the ring we have the shadow of Sauron all throughout the book. To actually bring him in would almost certainly be an anti-climax. It's like a game of chess - your opponent isn't actually a piece, but you are so acutely aware of him that if you lose you're not going to be pissed at the pieces, but the player.

Especially in books which are not a visual medium, a character like Sauron can have as much impact as a present villain. Remember that these characters live in your head - it doesn't matter if you never hear Sauron speak or read him fight, he's centre stage for much of the last book and periodically throughout.

In the movies I'd say it's more man vs world though, seeing as it's a visual medium.

My current WIP, the antagonist's effects are felt from the first sentence, but he doesn't make an appearance until about 40% into the book. He's not even present most of the time - his henchman is doing all the work, but without the boss this henchman wouldn't be doing anything bad, so the boss is still the antagonist. It's very much man vs man (or machine - it's an AI) but other villains get in the way for a lot of the book - the main conflict is that the AI is trying to take form and not be stuck in computers anymore, and his goal is very much a evil thing in the good-vs-evil sense, but he has to act through others to achieve his goals. But his effect is felt from the first sentence, and he'll be the starring role in the final scene as my 2 MCs do him in (with his lackeys out of the way).

The AI is what holds the story together, but due to circumstances most readers would consider his number one henchman to be the main protagonist. I don't think it really matters, as if I ever wrote a blurb for this thing, I'd mention both the AI and the mass-murderer and not give much information past an ominousness.

ETA: The effect of the henchman is felt from chapter two (one of his ritual murders) and he's met about a third of the way through the book. But he's constantly being hunted and alluded to by his killing spree.

In my first MS it was more men-vs-world - there was only a hint at a bad guy at the end, and it didn't matter much for the story, because by manipulating items in the world, things go back to how they should be. So again, the protagonist of the world would come in on page one, and exit in the last chapter (though in that one I did have an epilogue, which foreshadowed the sequel, which I have since realised that foreshadowing is a bit blunt and would be a turnoff to publishers unless they really wanted to give me a 3 book deal...).

/ramble

[Neversage]

It's like a game of chess - your opponent isn't actually a piece, but you are so acutely aware of him that if you lose you're not going to be pissed at the pieces, but the player.

I love this. I've never heard this concept put so perfectly, or at least never noticed it.

[Cliff Face]

I love this. I've never heard this concept put so perfectly, or at least never noticed it.

Aww, you sweet talker you. ;)